For someone who claims to loved him some movies, I really didn't see a whole lot this last year. According to my records, I saw 39 movies dated 2003; I've seen 65 that are dated 2002.
Admittedly, I didn't necessarily see all 65 in 2002; I saw François Ozon's 8 Women, a 2002 release, in 2003. (I don't keep a daily log of what I see, cuz I'm just too lazy, although this blog may change that.) But even so, I'd estimate I saw 55 to 60 films in 2002 in the theater.
I don't know the reason for the drop-off, although I suspect only seeing 4 movies at SIFF would be the prime suspect. (2001 was my big SIFF year, which bumped my 2001 total to 95.) Also, my good friend Mary went to live and work in the U.K. in 2002, and she could always be counted on to drag me to see something I wanted to see but didn't want to take a bus across town for.
So, anyway, I hope to see at least 50 movies in the theater this year and get back into the swing of things. I want to take the art of films (and thinking about films) more seriously than I have in the past. I started a website back in 2001 after SIFF, but it was more ambitious than I could maintain, and I let it lie fallow. Hopefully, this blog, which, by its very nature is less ambitious, won't suffer the same fate.
So now some quickie, not-really-thought-out comments on the top ten:
Pirates of the Carribean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (Gore Verbinski)
Johnny Depp is the main reason, of course; but how about a little love for Geoffrey Rush? He's a natural ham, and he hasn't had a role recently that lets him channel that porcine energy effectively. (Shine doesn't count.) More fun than a crass and heartless exercise in brand extension had any right to be.
One thing that's bothering me, though. I've been a 'Binski Booster since his debut with Mousehunt, which was a shitty movie, sure, but I saw hints of poetry there, particularly in a quiet sequence with Nathan Lane standing in the snow. And I think he's terrific with actors, as James Gandolfini in The Mexican and the aforementioned Depp and Rush demonstrate. But ever since The Ring, as the budgets increase, I feel his distinctiveness (or potential distinctiveness, at least) as a director wane. This is the old, old story, of course; big money has a way of sapping idiosyncrasy. Yet somehow David Fincher manages to retain an individual stamp on his movies, and I had Verbinski pegged as the next Fincher. But with each picture, that seems less and less likely.
More later.
Where we saw it: film | We deign to rate it: outta 100Verbinski is always a surprise to me. Frankly, I usually expect to really dislike his movies, but end up very entertained. At least that was the case with the Mexican (which I swore I'd never see from the trailers, but now own on DVD), The Ring, and Pirates.
While the Ring didn't floor me, it impressed me quite a bit more than I expected, and Pirates was frankly one of the funnest films I've seen in years.
My personal low expectations have nothing to do per se with Verbinski, but with the way his movies are promoted as rather generic big studio releases. It seems that he has the ability to keep his head clear in the way of large budgets.
Plust he used to play in Punk Rawk bands. He can't be all bad.
Posted by: Martin at January 4, 2004 10:52 AMYay! A comment from Martin!
(To all other readers: Be sure to check out Martin's site, "No Matter. Try Again. Fail Again. Fail Better", which you can link to from the sidebar, cuz it's crescent fresh.)
'Binski played in Punk Rawk bands? Did not know that.
That's cool to know that there's at least another person who, well, doesn't hate or sneer at the 'Binski. And it's true--he didn't really start in indie features from what I understand (like Fincher, he started in commercials), so I can understand the low expectations. But I guess my real fear--which started with The Ring and was made worse by Pirates--is that he'll turn into a Dominic Sena or a Simon Wincer; that is, a hollowed-out zombie operated by remote control sensors by a Jerry Bruckheimer or the like.
Then again, maybe I'm being too much of an awtoorist and focusing too much energy on the guy. Maybe 'Binski isn't deserving of this kind of concern and attention. But I hope not.
Posted by: Kza at January 4, 2004 02:18 PMIronically, my take on Fincher is the opposite of Verbinski. That is, I always go in expecting more and come out a bit dissapointed. Whether this is a commentary on either director, or merely me responding to the zeitgeist des films.
It needs to be said, though, that expectations are usually unusually high for Fincher, and in one way he has never disspointed, in fact has exceeded expecation: his title sequences are beautiful.
Posted by: Martin at January 4, 2004 04:05 PMI would definitely argue that Fincher has made his masterpiece already in Fight Club and that everything after that, here, is just gravy. In my opinion, somebody like even David Lean would be super-pleased to have made so good a movie. I'd maybe even argue it as the strongest overall movie ever directed. I teach it, for crying out loud.
Fincher is brilliant and funny, and I like his work a lot, but he may have already peaked. I hope not, but . . .
Spike Jonze, on the other hand, still has a ways to go, and I say this with Adaptation being my number 1 film of last year. He's still got wonderful artistic growing up to do and I suspect he'll transform his current broken-up with Sophie, who is awesome by the way, pain, into something really good.
Posted by: Daniel R, Jensen at January 8, 2004 10:38 PMHey Daniel--
I liked Fight Club an awful lot, but I didn't LOVE it. I actually (and this might be heresy to some) liked Panic Room better.
But, I'm not unflappable. I'm very flappable. Can you give me a few short arguments why I should consider Fight Club a masterpiece?
Cheers!
Posted by: Martin at January 9, 2004 03:05 PM